Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262416AbTEVAru (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 20:47:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262422AbTEVAru (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 20:47:50 -0400 Received: from imladris.surriel.com ([66.92.77.98]:45967 "EHLO imladris.surriel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262416AbTEVArt (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 20:47:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 21:00:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Rik van Riel To: Robert White cc: David Woodhouse , "" , William Lee Irwin III , "Martin J. Bligh" , "" Subject: RE: recursive spinlocks. Shoot. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 871 Lines: 23 On Mon, 19 May 2003, Robert White wrote: > In point of fact, "proper" locking, when combined with "proper" > definitions of an interface dictate that recursive locking is "better". > Demanding that a call_EE_ know what locks a call_ER_ (and all > antecedents of caller) will have taken is not exactly good design. So call_EE_ messes with the data structure which call_ER_ has locked, unexpectedly because the recursive locking doesn't show up as an error. Looks like recursive locking would just make debugging harder. Rik -- Engineers don't grow up, they grow sideways. http://www.surriel.com/ http://kernelnewbies.org/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/